The case revolves around an arbitration decision by the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) involving the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA), the Ecuadorian National Anti-Doping Organization (ONADE), and athlete Mónica María Cajamarca Illescas. The athlete, an amateur marathon runner from Ecuador, tested positive for the prohibited substance 19-norandrosterone (a metabolite of nandrolone) during an in-competition test in Vienna in April 2016 and an out-of-competition test in May 2016. ONADE initially imposed a one-year suspension, but WADA appealed to CAS, arguing the sanction was insufficient under the World Anti-Doping Code (WADC). The CAS panel, consisting of a sole arbitrator, emphasized that international anti-doping regulations, including those of WADA and the International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF), take precedence over national laws, obligating ONADE to enforce these rules.
The athlete claimed the positive tests resulted from consuming meat from roosters treated with steroids on her husband’s farm, but she failed to provide concrete evidence linking the meat to the prohibited substance. Her defense included shifting explanations, such as attributing the results to physical exertion or medical conditions, but these were deemed unsubstantiated. The arbitrator ruled that the athlete did not meet her burden of proof to establish inadvertent ingestion, as required by the strict liability principle of the WADC. The decision reinforced that athletes must provide reliable evidence to contest doping violations, not just speculative claims.
WADA sought a four-year suspension, arguing the athlete’s behavior demonstrated recklessness amounting to indirect intent. ONADE defended its decision, citing Ecuadorian law, but the arbitrator dismissed this, affirming the supremacy of international anti-doping rules. The CAS ultimately upheld WADA’s appeal, imposing a four-year ineligibility period retroactive to May 2016 and disqualifying all competitive results from April 2016. The ruling highlighted the challenges faced by amateur athletes, particularly those without institutional support, in navigating anti-doping regulations. It also underscored the stringent evidentiary standards required to prove unintentional violations, as mere claims of contamination without corroborating evidence are insufficient.
The case illustrates the tension between international anti-doping frameworks and national legal systems, as well as the difficulties athletes face in proving accidental ingestion of prohibited substances. The final decision emphasized the binding nature of WADA and IAAF regulations on national organizations and athletes, reinforcing the strict liability principle and the need for athletes to rigorously substantiate their defenses. The arbitrator’s award modified the original sanction, aligning it with the WADC provisions and dismissing all other requests for relief. The outcome serves as a reminder of the high burden of proof athletes must meet to avoid severe sanctions under global anti-doping rules.